e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5

Attitudes to conservation and water consumption

Bill Randolph a,*, Patrick Troy b

aCity Futures Research Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment, University of NSW, Sydney 2052, Australiab Fenner School of Environment and Society, Australian National University, Canberra, ACT 0200, Australia

a r t i c l e i n f o

Published on line 7 May 2008

Keywords:

Attitudes

Behaviour

Pricing

Domestic

Water

a b s t r a c t

Sydney’s water supply is under great pressure as the demand continues to rise. Demand

mitigation strategies have had some success, but domestic consumption remains high. This

paper discusses the attitudes of households to their water consumption in a search for ways

in which domestic demand for water may be reduced. Evidence on attitudes of households

in different kinds of housing was obtained using a telephone interview survey supplemen-

ted by information derived from focus groups drawn from households in the same areas.

The information was collected in a period when strong water use restrictions were in place

and major arguments were being mounted in favour of water pricing as a way of moderating

demand. The paper argues that the complexity of the forces shaping demand needs to be

understood in the context of the socio-demographic composition of households in different

kinds of dwellings, as well as the cultural, behavioural and institutional aspects of con-

sumption, if public policy is to be successful in reducing consumption and/or providing

alternative domestic supplies of potable water.

# 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.

avai lab le at www.sc iencedi rec t .com

journal homepage: www.e lsev ier .com/ locate /envsc i

1. Introduction

With Sydney having undergone its third hottest summer on

record in 2005/2006 (Sydney Morning Herald, May 23, 2006)

and drought condition across much of NSW which only broke

in late 2007, pressure remains high on finding a solution to

Sydney’s water supply problems. A substantial literature has

been generated both in the industry and in the media on how

this issue can be best tackled. There is no shortage of

proposed technological ‘fixes’ for this ‘problem’: by increas-

ing supply at the macro-scale through major desalination

plants, constructing more dams, tapping underground water

supplies, recycling industrial wastewater, and at the micro or

domestic scale by installing water tanks, recycling household

‘grey’ water, and other domestic adaptations. There is also a

plethora of initiatives to reduce consumption by using water

efficient fittings within the home and by encouraging changes

in garden practices. Some of these are now enshrined in

the BASIX framework in NSW introduced in 2005 (NSW

* Corresponding author. Tel.: +61 2 9385 5117; fax: +61 2 9385 5935.E-mail address: b.randolph@unsw.edu.au (B. Randolph).

1462-9011/$ – see front matter # 2008 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserveddoi:10.1016/j.envsci.2008.03.003

Department of Planning, 2007), under which new and

renovated dwellings are required to comply to higher levels

of water conservation standards through the installation of,

for example, dual flush toilets, low flow shower heads, rain

water tanks and low water consumption gardens, to reduce

household water consumption.

More generally, there is increasing public concern over the

ecological sustainability of Australian cities (Commonwealth

of Australia, 2005). Part of this concern is reflected in

increasing attention being paid to issues of global climate

change and to the way water and energy resources are

exploited. Much debate on these issues is focused on aggregate

measures of energy and water consumption and of the

technical or economic aspects of maintaining supply of these

resources. While this is a useful level of debate when trying to

negotiate international agreements or develop urban planning

interventions, it has little purchase on the consumption

behaviour of individuals and households that are the prime

sources of the stresses we create in the natural systems on

.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5442

which our cities depend (Head et al., 2005; Head and Muir,

2006; Hurliman, 2006).

The suburbanisation of Australian cities carried with it the

seeds of the present crisis in urban water consumption. The

paradise offered by suburbanisation was in large measure the

attraction of a verdant environment in which houses were set

among trees, shrubs, flower and vegetable beds, all of which

were made possible by assured water supplies to sustain

plants during long dry summers. The gardens in which houses

were located were at once aesthetically pleasing, a source of

food, an expression of status, a source of recreation and a

secure place for children to grow and experience contact with

nature (Troy, 1991). They offered an image of relaxation in

beauty and flexibility in adapting to the varying demands of

households. They were also the sites for accommodation of

the trophies and possessions of the consumerist society. Later

they became important as sites for entertainment. As early as

1941 Robert Menzies, later to become Prime Minister for 17

years until his retirement in 1966, recognised the importance

of the house with its garden as a powerful force shaping

households’ ambitions and aspirations when he spoke of the

desire of people to own their own home (Brett, 2007). Gaynor

reminds us of the fundamental nature of these ambitions

when she writes of the garden as an expression of a

household’s desire for ‘independence’ but goes further when

she illustrates the significance of household garden produc-

tion (Gaynor, 2006). The ‘garden city’ idea that was powerfully

influential in town planning policies and practice in Australian

cities reinforced these notions (Freestone, 2000). Reduction in

garden watering affects the utility of gardens to provide for the

activities and meet the desires of households and could

undermine the garden city ideal central to urban planning for

much of the last century.

Mullins (1981a, 1981b, 1996) was one of the earliest to

demonstrate the importance of domestic production and

consumption in development of the high standard of living

enjoyed by Australians. Although he did not explore the

connection in depth, it is clear that water consumption was

important in maintaining high levels of domestic production.

Other research has focussed on social distinction and

conformity to explain apparently high levels of water

consumption on household gardens (Askew and Mcguirk,

2004) and on the importance of gardens as places where

people engage with nature (Head et al., 2005; Head and Muir,

2006), but gives no indication of the effects of household size

on comparative consumption.

Other writers have also noted socio-demographic, beha-

vioural, institutional, and cultural factors that appear to

influence the propensity to maintain gardens and thereby

affect water consumption (Duruz, 1994; Holmes, 1999; Hitch-

ings, 2003; Johnson, 1994; Allon and Sofoulis, 2006; Sofoulis,

2005). These socio-demographic considerations supplement

exploration of economic factors such as income and physical

factors such as temperature and rainfall that have been used

to ‘explain’ the levels of water consumption (Aitken et al.,

1991; Bell, 1972; Dandy, 1987; Eardley et al., 2005; Espey et al.,

1997; Turner et al., 2005; White et al., 2003). The difficulties and

limitations of educational campaigns and the dissemination

of knowledge in changing behaviour (Sofoulis, 2005; Barr,

2003), together with the impact of consumerism on water

consumption through the daily routines and perceptions of

entitlement, also point to the complexity of factors that affect

water consumption (Trentmann and Taylor, 2006). A limita-

tion of socio-demographic studies is that they tend to use

estimated National or State averages of garden water

consumption which have the effect of obscuring important

elements of the assumptions underlying this approach. The

socio-demographic approaches have also ignored the impact

that different forms of housing may have on the propensities

of households to use water, and the effect different forms of

housing may have on their attitudes and perceptions of water

use. This issue is becoming more important as Australian

cities are transformed through the impact of compact cities

policies and development pressures (Bunker et al., 2005).

Moreover, there is no simple ‘read-off’ between expressed

opinions on the environmental matters and actual conserva-

tion behaviour (Hamilton, 1985). Ungar (1994) contends that

the environment is a domain in which attitudes do not predict

behaviours very well. Sofoulis (2005) (and others, e.g. Shove,

2003) goes beyond the limitations of polling identified by Ungar

to point out that consumption is directly influenced by socio-

technical considerations which may not change quickly or

evenly. Residents may not be able to change their behaviour

rapidly because of the rigidities or path dependencies created

by the water supply and waste disposal systems they have

available to them. These path dependencies are often

reinforced by the institutional structures (and cultures

established in them) created to provide the services.

We take this position further by arguing that the type of

housing consumers live in, specifically the density of the

dwelling form (high rise or low rise), the tenure of those

dwellings (rental or owned) and the water using facilities they

provide, together with their life style position and profile, will

greatly impact on an individual household’s capacity to

respond to water saving and this in turn will be reflected in

general attitudes and behaviour to water conservation. This is

a result of physical and technical aspects of housing form and

ownership, as well as the socio-demographic profile of

households in different forms of housing.

1.1. Background to this study

The research reported here follows earlier studies including a

pilot study of water and energy consumption in Adelaide (Troy

and Holloway, 2004; Troy et al., 2003) and research on the

spatial water consumption profile of the Sydney metropolitan

area (Troy et al., 2005). The latter study constructed an

‘account’ of local water consumption patterns from a stratified

sample of 29,000 residential addresses in Sydney using Sydney

Water consumer records, thereby providing a profile of water

consumption for households and individuals in different

kinds of dwellings throughout the Sydney metropolitan area.

This paper extends the research on Sydney’s water

consumption patterns through an exploration of the impact

that socio-economic, attitudinal and behavioural factors may

have on water consumption across urban areas. It is generally

held that reduced water consumption is likely to reduce the

environmental stress generated by urban areas, particularly in

terms of impacts on water catchments, wastewater and sewage

outputs. Little research has been conducted to understand how

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5 443

different types of built form contribute to these environmental

impacts,what the contribution ofsocialand behavioural factors

on these impacts are, and how they play out across the city.

Despite sustainability becoming a central concern of urban

planning in recent years, few estimates have been made of the

per capita use of water or energy by dwelling type and policy is

often shaped on the notion that broad brush economic,

technical or regulatory measures will be effective in reducing

average consumption. The objective of this research is to

explore the way water consumption is shaped by the

behaviour, attitudes and facilities used by different kinds of

households in different types of dwellings in Sydney and to

their perceptions of their water use and attitudes to

conservation measures. The research is an attempt to under-

stand some of the behavioural aspects of water consumption

in Sydney during a period when Level 2 (Sydney Water, 2007)

water restrictions were in place, which, together with price

rises, have become the principle methods to reduce water

consumption. The implications these have for environmental

planners and service providers in future decision-making to

achieve more sustainable urban outcomes are discussed.

We use here a simple definition of ‘behaviour’ to mean the

actions reported by people in response to direct questions to

them about the way they consume water. It will be clear from

the text when the ‘behaviour’ refers to some future intended

action(s) and where we include comment on the reliability of

their response. Our definition of ‘attitudes’ refers to the

responses of people when invited to assess the efficacy or

perceptions of the behaviour of others or when they are invited

to express a view about their own behaviour. This definition is

somewhat less general or technical than that found in Eagly and

Chaiken (1998), but it implicitly acknowledges the point made

by them in discussing Stern et al. (1995) research that ‘. . .people

derive their attitudes on specific environmental issues from

their general values and internalized norms. . .’ (Eagly and

Chaiken, 1998)(Eagly and Chaiken, 1998:284). Stern’s later work

(2000:422) acknowledges the difficulty and complexity in

understanding environmentally significant behaviour, but does

point out that the attitudinal causes of such behaviour ‘have the

greatest predictive value for behaviours that are not strongly

constrained by context or personal capabilities’.

The research here improves the understanding of service

providers and environmental planners of the roles the built

environment and consumer attitudes and behaviour play in

determining water consumption. This includes the kinds of

changes in pricing, regulation or availability of services that

may be needed to encourage reduced water consumption by

individuals living in different types of dwellings, differences in

tenure and in different kinds of households. It is important in

reviewing this study to understand that the attitudes reported

are those of Sydney residents. Attitudes and behaviour in

other cities will be conditioned by their prevailing culture,

social behaviour, system technology and local climate

patterns.

2. Method

The data for the research was obtained through a random

quota telephone survey of 2179 addresses in a random

stratified sample of 140 Census Collectors’ Districts (CDs)

used for the earlier research by the authors on water

consumption in Sydney reported above (Troy et al., 2005).

Fig. 1 maps their location. The survey was conducted between

December 2004 and April 2005 by the national market research

company, AC Nielsen. The 140 CDs were stratified into four

categories each of 35 CDs comprising areas of separate houses,

areas of predominately semi-detached dwellings, areas of

predominantly flats in a block of less than 4 storeys and areas

of predominantly flats in a block of 4 or more storeys. Target

quotas of 500 responses per dwelling type were set, but the

difficulties of obtaining responses from flats meant the final

quotas were skewed towards houses (for a full account of the

survey and focus group research see Troy and Randolph, 2006).

The resulting data have been weighted to reflect the distribu-

tion of dwelling types and dwelling tenure in Sydney as a

whole. The results therefore may be viewed as a reflection of

attitudes of households across Sydney.

Additional information was obtained through a series of six

targeted focus groups conducted in April and May 2005 by SMS

Research that explored the behavioural aspects of water

consumption among key types of households, defined by

dwelling type and household/life stage type The groups were

asked about awareness of conservation programs and policies,

attitudes to more sustainable consumption practices and

attitudes to pricing strategies and the kinds of measures that

could be employed to encourage households to reduce water

consumption.

As noted above, the fieldwork was undertaken in a period

when Level 2 water restrictions were in force. Water was a

major news item and strongly debated in the Sydney media.

Water conservation had also been the focus of a strong

advertising campaign by Sydney Water in the period preceding

the research. Respondents were expected to reveal a heigh-

tened awareness of the issues involved and might also be

expected to report behaviour towards water use reflecting that

concern.

3. The socio-demographic profile of waterusers in Sydney

A key starting point for the analysis was the socio-demo-

graphic differences between the occupants of the four main

dwelling types identified in the study. These differences were

most prominently expressed in terms of household size.

Overall, two in five (19%) households were lone persons, a

third (33%) comprised two people and three in ten had four or

more people in the household (Table 1). But there was a

substantial difference between dwelling types in terms of their

household size. While 40% of households in separate houses

had four or more persons, the proportion fell to 9% for those in

flats. Households in flats were most likely to have only one

person (39% of low rise flats and 32% of high rise flats). On

average, households contained 2.59 persons, ranging from

2.86 persons for households in separate houses to 2.37 persons

for those in semis and 1.97 persons for those in flats.

Overall, then, respondents living in houses had significantly

larger households. But they were also older on average and

were also likely to have higher household incomes than other

Fig. 1 – Distribution of sampled Census Collectors’ Districts (CDs) in the Sydney metropolitan area.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5444

households. They were more likely not to be in the labour force

(i.e. at home or retired) but they had the lowest unemployment

rate for those in the labour force. They were the least mobile

and also much more likely to be home owners or buyers.

Those in low-rise flatswere the most likely to be working but

were also the most likely to be unemployed and to have lower

incomes than households in other dwelling types. They

included the largest proportion of single person households,

which helps to explain their lower household income levels.

They were generally younger than respondents in houses or

semis, but compared with those in high-rise flats, the

proportion aged 35–55 was significantly larger.

Respondents in high-rise flats were the youngest group but

had relatively higher incomes, especially compared with those

in low-rise flats. At the same time, the proportion over 55 years

was higher than those in low-rise flats. These findings indicate

both a large youthful market but also an older ‘empty nester’

and higher income market in the high-rise sector. They were

also the most mobile, with 61% having moved into their

current home within 2 years of the survey. The profile of

respondents living in semi-detached housing lay somewhere

between those in houses and those in flats, suggesting a more

diverse sector.

Most significantly, the tenure profile of the four groups

varied considerably. While 80% of respondents in houses

owned their homes or were buying them on a mortgage, only

38% of flat dwellers were owner occupiers. In contrast, while

17% of house dwellers rented, well over half (61%) of flat

dwellers did. As we argue below, these housing tenure

differences are significant factors in explaining the different

attitudes and perceptions of our sampled respondents, in large

part because they reflect very different kevels of control over

the provision and use of, and payment for, water services

between owners and renters. This factor is highly correlated

with the characteristics of residents, with renters highly

associated with flats, which in turn was associated with high

mobility levels (17% of respondents in houses had moved in

the previous 3 years compared with 44% for those in semi-

detached houses and to 55% for all flats), lower incomes and a

more youthful population compared with those in houses and

semis.

One the main reasons for differences in the perceptions

and attitudes of households between respondents in the four

dwelling types we discuss below is clearly the different tenure

and socio-demographic composition of occupants of these

dwelling types. We would argue that this ‘compositional’

effect is critical in understanding the variations in responses

we discuss at length in the rest of the paper.

Flat dwellers and many of those in semi-detached housing

live in strata developments, where multiple individually owned

flats (or ‘lots’) share a single property ‘title’ (which encompasses

the entire apartment block). In Australia, water bills are usually

sent to the owner of the property to which the title refers which,

in the case of strata developments, is the owners’ corporation

(made up of all individual lot owners, who jointly own the

block). The overall water usage bill for the block is then

apportioned pro rata to individual owners usually in relation to

the size of the apartment, irrespective of their actual usage.

Most individual flat owners therefore have no way of knowing

or estimating how much water they use each quarter, as their

actual consumption is not shown on their quarterly strata levy.

Similarly, renters, especially for those in strata title property,

have little understanding of how much water they use or how

much it costs. Moreover, renters have little control over the

provision of water using facilities they use, such as water

efficient washing machines and other water saving fittings,

while under the current tax and subsidy systems, landlords

have absolutely no incentive to provide them.

Table 1 – Socio-demographic profiles of dwelling types

Separate houses Semis All flats Low rise flats High rise flats Total

Household size

1 13% 20% 36% 39% 32% 19%

2 29% 40% 40% 38% 46% 33%

3 18% 21% 14% 15% 13% 17%

4 plus 40% 18% 9% 9% 9% 30%

Average size 2.86 2.37 1.97 ** ** 2.59

Age of respondent

18–34 18% 32% 41% 41% 45% 25%

35–54 44% 38% 32% 35% 24% 41%

Over 55 37% 39% 26% 24% 29% 34%

Employment status of respondent

Employed full-time 46% 50% 56% 58% 54% 49%

Employed part-time 16% 17% 12% 12% 11% 15%

Unemployed 4% 5% 7% 8% 6% 5%

Not in labour force 29% 22% 21% 19% 24% 26%

Other 4% 6% 4% 3% 4% 4%

Household income

Up to $31,200 18% 27% 24% 25% 22% 20%

$31,201–$52,000 17% 16% 22% 24% 17% 17%

$52,001–$78,000 16% 13% 15% 15% 16% 15%

$78,001–$104,000 12% 19% 15% 16% 14% 14%

More than $104,001 20% 16% 13% 11% 17% 18%

Housing tenure

Owned outright 49% 35% 25% 22% 26% 42%

Buyer 31% 23% 13% 14% 11% 25%

Private renter 12% 36% 55% 57% 54% 25%

Public renter 5% 5% 6% 5% 9% 5%

Other/do not know 3% 2% 1% 2% 0% 2%

Year respondent moved in

2004–2005 6% 20% 26% 23% 32% 13%

2002–2003 11% 24% 29% 29% 29% 17%

2001–2002 16% 15% 14% 16% 11% 15%

1996–1999 14% 12% 11% 12% 10% 13%

Pre-1996 51% 28% 20% 21% 18% 41%

Base (100%) 1395 248 536 334 185 2179

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5 445

4. Water use inside and outside the home

The ability to use water is also highly dependent on the range

of water using amenities available to a household, regardless

of its size and socio-economic profile. The second starting

point of the study was therefore to profile the differences in

the access to the range of domestic water consuming facilities

people have and how they use them, particularly in terms of

the frequency of use. Again, there were some clear differences

between the four dwelling categories for both water use inside

as well as outside the home that help to explain the

differences in attitude and behaviour towards water use

revealed in the survey.

5. Water use inside the home

Virtually all houses had a shower, laundry, kitchen sink, basin,

bath, washing machine (98%), and a substantial proportion

had additional facilities such as dish washers (49%), multiple

showers (43%) and wash basins (42%). Flats had, on average,

lower levels of space and amenity compared with houses

which meant that they had fewer multiple bathrooms, toilets

and separate laundries. Low-rise flats, which tend to be older

and of poorer quality, have the lowest standards of all the

dwelling types (Table 2).

While dwellings had a wide range of water using

facilities and equipment, respondents also reported a wide

range of water using behaviours. Those washing dishes by

hand in a sink may have very different washing methods,

making the control of water use highly dependent on the

individual’s approach to dish washing. These differences

become very important, especially when attempting to

encourage households to reduce water use within the

home.

Those living in houses generally have a greater opportunity

to use water, including external use on gardens and lawn areas

and multiple toilets and/or bathrooms. Despite having more

opportunities to use water, as we noted above, on an average

per capita basis, residents in houses in Sydney do not use

significantly more water than those living in flats (Troy et al.,

2005). Nevertheless, the perception among focus group

participants was that people in flats did not use much water

as those in houses:

Table 2 – Water using facilities by dwelling type

Separate houses Semis All flats Low rise flats High rise flats Total

Showers (%)

0 0 1 1 1 1 1

1 46 62 79 86 67 56

2 or more 54 37 20 13 32 43

Baths (%)

0 11 12 13 11 16 12

1 79 85 84 86 82 81

2 or more 10 3 3 3 2 7

Kitchen sink (%)

0 0 1 0 0 0 0

1 64 64 75 77 70 67

2 or more 36 35 25 23 29 33

Washing basin (%)

0 3 7 7 6 7 5

1 47 50 72 79 61 54

2 or more 50 43 21 15 32 42

Laundry sink (%)

0 2 5 16 17 15 6

1 90 93 82 82 84 88

2 or more 8 2 2 2 1 6

Dual flush toilets (%) 64 55 49 46 54 51

Indoor Spa bath (%) 12 6 5 2 7 9

Outdoor spa bath (%) 5 5 2 0 6 4

Swimming pool (%) 24 9 14 5 29 20

Dishwasher (%) 57 41 31 20 51 49

Front load wash/machine (%) 13 25 19 16 23 16

Top load wash/machine (%) 87 75 74 76 71 82

Base (100%) 1395 248 536 334 185 2179

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5446

‘‘I don’t think that units can waste that much’’ (Group 6)

It was acknowledged, however, that within blocks of flats

there were likely to be heavy and light users, but the heavy

users were not identifiable:

‘‘It’s hard to pin down the identity of high users in blocks of

units’’ (Group 6)

Both the use of water saving devices and adoption of water

use practices in the home were highly variable. While half of

those surveyed said they had at least one water efficient

shower head, only a third reported having reducer fittings on

taps in the kitchen or bathroom and few have them fitted in

the laundry. Flats generally reported having fewer of these

kinds of fittings than other kinds of property.

While one in ten respondents said they never washed

dishes by hand, a third washed by hand daily. Rinsing of

dishes while washing them was common, with three quarters

either rinsing before, during or after washing their dishes,

although a clear majority rinsed in a plugged sink rather than

under running water. Flat dwellers were twice as likely to rinse

under running water, which may reflect the fact that they

wash fewer items compared with larger households in houses.

A perhaps surprising finding is that one in ten of those who

had a dishwasher (about half those sampled) say they never

use it, a figure that increases to a quarter among high-rise flat

dwellers. This finding may reflect the view held by focus group

participants that there was an increased propensity among

flat dwellers to eat out or to eat take-away meals at home

which in turn meant there was reduced water consumption in

food preparation, cooking and cleaning. More positively, two-

third of dishwasher users used economy settings, although it

is not clear if this was all the time.

Turning to clothes washing, the survey found that on

average, a Sydney household washed clothes around four times

a week. Nearly all used their own washing machine while a

quarter also washed by hand. Very few used laundromats or

shared laundries and virtually all those who did lived in flats. In

considering reducing washing frequency, some focus group

participants with children acknowledged that although not all

the children’s clothes they washed were actually dirty, it was

easier to wash all the clothes worn at least once rather than

separate the dirty from the clean. This may be regarded as an

example of behaviour being shaped by the convenience of

modern washing machine operations (as well as to attitudes to

dirt) in the same way Hand et al. (2003) write about showering.

6. Water use outside the home

6.1. Gardens

The nature of the prevailing water restrictions in Sydney

implied that reduced external water use was to be expected.

While there appears to be a major potential for water

conservation with respect to garden use, given the high pro-

portion of respondents who have gardens, when asked how

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5 447

frequently respondents with garden beds (excluding lawns)

watered them, 25% said they did so 3–4 times a week or more

frequently, in breach of the permitted levels. However, we did

not determine whether this was by using recycled water (such

as dish washing water). A further 37% watered once or twice a

week, broadly in line with permitted watering under the water

restrictions. About one in ten (11%) watered their garden beds

fortnightly, but a quarter (24%) said they never watered their

gardens. The latter proportion increased for flats, where 36%

said the gardens around their building were never watered.

When asked whether they had changed their garden

watering practices during the previous year to reduce water-

ing, 56% of respondents with gardens said they had not.

Savings from reduced garden watering therefore appear to

have been generated by less than half of all garden owners. At

the other extreme 4% admitted they watered their gardens

beds daily, despite the restrictions. There appears to be a small

hard core among the heaviest garden waterers who remain

impervious to the call to reduce their consumption.

6.2. Lawns

Of those who lived in a property with a lawn for which they

had responsibility, 72% said they never watered it, 7% watered

fortnightly, 15% watered it once or twice a week (approxi-

mately the maximum permitted under water restrictions),

while another 6% watered it more often than that.

Had the restrictions made a difference to these propor-

tions? Just under a half (47%) of all respondents with a lawn

said they had not reduced watering in the previous year.

However, half (51%) of those who said they now never watered

the lawn also said they reduced watering in the previous year.

So it is possible that as many as half those who said they never

water their lawn may have stopped this practice in the period

the restrictions had come in. For frequent lawn waterers, old

habits die hard. Only a third of those who watered their lawn

3–4 times a week or more frequently also said they had

reduced watering in the previous year.

Water restrictions therefore appeared to have had more

impact on lawn watering than for general watering of garden

beds, but the difference was not huge. The survey revealed

both a continued use of more frequent garden watering by a

small minority, with a more general reduction of use among

the many. The proportion who never watered their garden and

who had not changed watering practices in the year before the

survey was substantial: perhaps between a quarter and a third

of those with gardens. Water restrictions therefore had little

significance for them.

6.3. Swimming pools

Despite the maximum usage of pools being in the summer

months, only a minority of those with pools (12%) regularly

used a pool cover to reduce evaporation, the major source of

water loss from pools in hot weather.

6.4. Car washing

Finally, car washing has also been thought of as a major

domestic use of water. Car washing at home was restricted at

the time of the survey to washing using a bucket. Half of those

with a car said they never washed it at home and almost two in

five said they never or rarely washed their car at all and 18%

said they only did so every 6 months or less. At the other

extreme 6% washed their vehicle weekly, while a further 10%

washed every fortnight. The frequency of washing second or

subsequent vehicle was lower. At best, car washing restric-

tions had directly impacted on only half of all car owners. The

most frequent car washers were the least likely to have

changed their car washing habits in the previous year during

which car washing restrictions had been introduced. Flat

dwellers were most likely to externalise water use for car

washing as only a minority washed their cars at home, most

probably because there was nowhere for them to do so.

7. Behavioural responses to waterconservation

So how do the interrelated socio-demographic, dwelling

amenity and tenure ‘compositional’ effects relate to attitudes

and behaviour towards water consumption and conservation?

The following section summarises the main findings with

respect to attitudes to and behavioural aspects of water

conservation in the home. The main concern is to explore

differences in responses between respondents living in

different dwelling types. The compositional factors that might

drive these differences are discussed where they appeared to

be significant.

8. Attitudes to water usage, pricing and watersaving in the home

A key element of the survey was to explore the awareness of

the use of water. If water users are unaware of the amount of

water they are using, pricing controls may well be mean-

ingless. Attitudes toward current and alternative pricing

approaches were also the focus of a number of questions.

The aim was to find out how much support there was for

differential pricing and other conservations methods, includ-

ing the restrictions prevailing at the time of the survey.

One in five (19%) of all respondents said they knew how

much water they used in a quarter. Despite the low level of

awareness of actual water uses, most thought they used about

average or below average amounts of water, compared with

other water users like themselves in Sydney. Two in five

thought they used around average amounts of water com-

pared with similar households, while half thought they used

below average. Only 7% thought they were above average

users, while 7% did not know. Most respondents believed they

used average or below average amounts of water, clearly a

statistical improbability!

Part of the reason why few knew how much water they

used is the fact that the high proportion of fixed fees (for mains

infrastructure, sewage disposal, etc.) in quarterly water

accounts masks the cost of water actually consumed and

tends to reduce the relative significance of variation in

seasonal consumption. The fixed fees are as much as half

the total bill for the average consumer and may exceed the

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5448

water charge for low water users. Participants of the focus

groups confirmed this point. Even among participants who

owned their dwelling and who brought their water bills to the

session, few had any idea of their total consumption, let alone

how it was constituted.

‘‘I have no concept of what (appliance) uses how much’’

(Group 3).

Among apartment dwellers, the common practice of

allocating water bills between owners on the basis of

apartment size regardless of actual usage was not felt to be

fair and seen as a disincentive to saving water.

‘‘We all have to pay if one person is wasting water’’ (Group 1).

Participants clearly thought that those in houses consumed

more than those in flats. They also thought that baths and

showers, followed by the laundry, were the places where most

water was consumed in their homes. They also believed that

kitchen and toilet consumption were about the same. When

informed of the Australian Bureau of Statistics’ estimate that

toilet consumption was approximately one-quarter of total

consumption they expressed surprise.

‘‘The figure for toilets amazes me.’’ (Group 1)

Other simply said they did not think of how much water

was used to flush toilets.

‘‘I am oblivious when I flush the toilet’ (Group 4)

Having been told that the average person in Sydney used

approximately 250 L per day, focus group participants

expressed disbelief. This reaction reflected both shock at

how high the figures was and the implications it held for water

management.

‘‘That’s horrifying, especially when so little is actually

drunk’’ (Group 1)

Fig. 2 – Is current water pricing fair?

‘‘The lack of grey water recycling is insane’’ (Group 2)

Those who were home owners were asked to estimate how

much water they used in their own households per quarter in

terms of both volume and cost. The overwhelming finding

here was that most had no idea of how many litres of water

they used per quarter and no confidence in trying to work it

out. Those willing to estimate made guesses which ranged

from 35 kL to 100’s of kLs, but all said they did not know.

‘‘I wouldn’t have a clue’’ (Group 4)

The main reason why estimating the volume of water used

was felt to be so hard is that few look at the amount consumed

as they are primarily interested in the overall price they have

to pay. While many are interested in comparing consumption

levels with that of previous quarters, as facilitated by a graph

provided on the bill, details such as number of kL are ignored

in favour of whether any fluctuation had occurred and, if so, in

what direction. In other words, they were more interested in

how much water they have used in relative rather than

absolute terms.

The increased meaningfulness of comparative, rather than

absolute, use of water was illustrated when participants

compared their bills with each other during the group session.

Some admitted to being embarrassed if their bill was

significantly higher than someone with the same size of

household or their bill was higher than someone with a

smaller household. We concluded from this that only

comparative amounts have meaning, because the volumes

reported on the bill are beyond most people’s comprehension.

8.1. Is current water pricing fair?

Despite the high level of uncertainty over actual levels of water

use, views on water pricing were more clearly defined. Just

over half (55%) of all respondents thought that the current

pricing of water was fair, with 21% saying it was not. But a fifth

simply did not know (Fig. 2). Three out of five (58%)

respondents in houses thought that the current pricing of

water was fair as did 56% of those in semis and 44% of

residents in flats. But two out of five flat dwellers did not have a

view on this issue.

The responses of focus groups to this question suggested a

high degree of consensus that water prices, though fair, were

nevertheless ‘‘ridiculously cheap’’ (Group 1) or ‘‘surprisingly

cheap’’ (Group 3), clearly implying that the water price was too

cheap to be a significant factor in moderating consumption.

Flat owners were particularly ignorant about the cost of water

because of the way in is absorbed into body corporate fees.

‘‘I go to body corporate meetings and it is never raised as an

issue, ever.’’ (Group 1)

Many participants took the view that water was a necessity

and it was therefore difficult to have a price attributed to it.

‘‘I don’t understand what it’s worth anyway’’ (Group 5)

8.2. Does water pricing encourage conservation?

More pertinently, respondents were asked if they thought

current water pricing might encourage the conservation of

water. On the whole, water charging was thought not to

encourage conservation: 44% thought that it did not compare

Fig. 3 – Does water pricing encourages conservation?

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5 449

with 34% who thought it did (Fig. 3). Those in houses were

most likely to think that current water pricing did not

encourage conservation. These are the people most likely to

know what water costs and to use water in the garden. Those

living in flats, especially those in high-rise flats, were most

likely not to have a view on this issue.

Focus group participants expressed a range of more

nuanced responses to this question, suggesting a greater

awareness of the complexities surrounding pricing and

conservation among consumers. Some argued there was a

need to increase the price:

‘‘They should increase the price and use the extra revenue

to build dams’’ (Group 3)

‘Wouldn’t you rather pay five times as much and have more

to use?’’ (Group 3)

Others took a different view, however, arguing that water

conservation was not a price issue but an educational and

behavioural one.

‘I don’t care if it is 1c a litre. You still want to cut it down’’

(Group 4)

While the issue of water rights was not specifically

explored, some focus group participants expressed the belief

that they had a ‘right’ to water—not in the sense of property

rights over water, but in the sense of a human right to a

minimum amount for their basic wellbeing (a distinction

made by Morgan, 2004) which they implicitly felt was

essentially price-less. Those taking such a position were

reluctant to agree that there was any need to increase the price

of water, especially since it was known that Sydney Water

made considerable surpluses on their operations which were

paid to the State Treasury.

8.3. Should extra charges be made for high water usage?

The concept of differential water pricing to reflect usage was

widely supported. Three quarters of survey respondents

thought that an additional fee should be charged for

consumers who use well above average amounts of water

while only one in six did not support this proposition. Those in

houses were less enthusiastic than those in higher density

dwellings, reflecting the larger average household size of

house dwellers: one in five of those in houses rejected the

proposition, compared with one in ten of those in semis and

only 7% of those in flats. Nevertheless, a clear majority was in

favour of the notion of higher users being charged a

differential, and higher, rate. At the same time, seven in ten

thought that charges should also be discounted for house-

holds who used well below average water use.

8.4. Should water prices be increased to encourage peopleto use less water?

Despite widespread support for differential pricing to reflect

water consumption, and the fact that more respondents said

that current water prices did not encourage conservation

compared with those who did, a clear majority (60%) of

respondents said they did not think water prices should be

increased to encourage lower water use. This paradoxical

result may be explained by the perception among many that

they should not be asked to pay more to meet conservation

objectives or to reduce environmental stresses that they feel

are primarily caused by others (see above). House dwellers

were less inclined to support increased water prices compared

with respondents in medium and higher density housing. The

result no doubt reflected water use and payment arrange-

ments with those in houses being more aware of the cost of

water.

The 30% of respondents who supported the proposition

that water prices should rise to encourage people to use less

water were asked a supplementary question to find out how

much prices should rise. The answer was generally ‘not a great

deal’: 40% of these respondents said up to 5% more should be

charged and a further 31% said between 5 and 10% more, while

17% said between 10 and 20% and 13% were happy for water

charges to go up over 20% to encourage lower water use. These

responses suggest that pricing policies to encourage lower

water use would only have minority support among domestic

water users and that even among those in favour, the price

increases supported are relatively modest, with seven in ten

supporting rises below 10%.

8.5. Should water prices be increased generally to pay forimproved conservation policies and practices?

Half (52%) did not agree with price increases to fund general

policies to improve water conservation, although two in five

agreed with the proposition. This may have been due to the

fact that the NSW State government had levied Sydney Water

with allegedly substantial environmental charges for some

years. Those in favour of increased charges to pay for

improved conservation policies and practices supported more

modest price increases compared with those who supported

increased charging to encourage lower use (reported above):

half said prices should rise by up to 5% and a further three in

ten said between 5 and 10%, leaving 20% supporting price rises

above 10%. There was, therefore, only minority support for

increasing water charges either to encourage lower water use

or to fund conservation policies.

Pricing policies have been long promoted as a way of

regulating user demand for water. Recent changes to the

Fig. 5 – Have you changed your water use inside your home

since water restrictions came in?

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5450

pricing structure of water in Sydney have included addi-

tional charges for high end users in an attempt to increase

the revenue stream of Sydney Water and to send a price

signal to those who use well above the average amount of

water to reduce their consumption. But if water users do not

respond to pricing signals because they have little idea how

much water they are using or how much it costs, pricing

policies that attempt to encourage conservation will fail. The

fact that few people are aware of the amount of water they

use or the amount they are charged for water strongly

suggests that pricing policies, on their own, are unlikely to

reduce water use for most households, or would have to be

punitive to make a difference. To be effective, these findings

strongly suggest that pricing policies to encourage conserva-

tion will require a consistent and long term educational

program to raise awareness of use levels, relative costs and

the actual amount used in different uses in the home. People

need to know much more about how much water they

use and which activities use the most water to make a

substantial difference.

8.6. How much water could you save?

Despite generally favourable views towards water conserva-

tion in the home, relatively few survey respondents thought

they could go much further in saving water at home. How

much further did they think they could go in saving water?

Only 7% thought they could do a lot more, 18% thought they

could do some more and a further 44% would only do a little

more. As many as 31% said they thought there was nothing

more they could do to save water (Fig. 4). These responses

suggest that further domestic water savings may be limited by

prevailing attitudes and patterns of behaviour. This finding

might be seen as confirmation of the conclusion by Barr

(2003:237) who suggests that ‘‘the assumption that basic

knowledge dissemination will have more than a minor

indirect effect on behaviour is naı̈ve’’ although Bamberg

(2003) argues that general attitudes are important indirect

determinants of specific behaviours.

We found no substantial difference in claims about how

much water they could save between those living in houses,

Fig. 4 – Thinking about how your household uses water,

how much do you feel that your household could do to

save water?

semi-detached houses or flats, both high and low rise.

Attitudes to the ability to save water does not, therefore,

seem to be related to current levels of water use, which varies

between households in different dwelling types (Troy et al.,

2005). On the other hand, housing tenure did seem to be

associated with different attitudes to water saving. Almost

half (47%) of public tenants felt they could not do any more to

reduce consumption compared with 28% of private tenants,

while 10% of both rental tenure types thought they could do a

lot more. Buyers (19%) were half as likely as outright owners

(37%), the latter being mainly elderly, to say they could not do

any more whereas only a small proportions of owners (4%) and

buyers (6%) say they could do ‘a lot more’.

8.7. Has water usage inside the home changed since waterrestrictions?

The survey findings suggest that the restrictions and the

associated media campaign by the NSW government had

influenced internal water use. Three-quarter (75%) said they

had changed the way they used water inside the home since

the water restrictions had been in force. There was a clear

differential between respondents in houses and those in

higher density housing. While 79% of those in houses and 75%

of those in semi-detached homes had changed their internal

water use patterns, only 67% of respondents living in low-rise

flats and 58% in high rise flats said they had (Fig. 5). The level of

inaction on internal water conservation doubled from one in

five for houses to two in five for high-rise flats. Home owners

and buyers were more likely to have changed their usage

inside the home (80%) compared with private renters (63%)

although, perhaps surprisingly, even more public tenants said

they had (87%).

9. Actions respondents had taken to reducewater use

Given that water restrictions had clearly prompted changes in

water use behaviour among respondents, what was the range

of actions taken to reduce consumption? A series of questions

probed this issue, in terms of action already taken and actions

that might be taken in the future, in order to identify the most

significant changes in water use around the home.

Fig. 6 – Actions taken in last 12 months to reduce water consumption and actions likely to take in the next 12 months to

reduce water consumption.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5 451

9.1. Actions taken over the last year

Respondents were asked whether they had reduced water

consumption over the last year (Fig. 6). Sydney households had

reduced water use across a broad range of activities. The

actions were highly variable and dependent on the type of

activity and the respondents’ direct control over the amount of

water used. The results suggest Sydney residents have some

way to go before attitudes to water conservation lead to

widespread and substantial changes in behaviour to achieve

further reductions in water consumption.

The most common actions to reduce water use over the

previous 12 months were reducing garden watering (discussed

above) and taking shorter showers, both reported by three in

ten of respondents. Reduced garden watering is hardly

surprising given it was one of the specific targets of the

restrictions and the penalties for exceeding permitted water-

ing. When these responses are restricted to respondents with

a front, back or communal garden, the proportion increases to

37% overall. These results show that garden watering

restrictions directly impacted on the consumption behaviour

of less than two in five households with a garden. Despite the

relatively low proportion of households who were actually

impacted by the garden watering restrictions, focus group

participants made many suggestions on how garden watering

could be reduced ranging from changing the types of plants to

using recycled water. The latter being seen as allowing them to

regain the freedom to use water as and when they choose.

‘‘With recycled water you can use it whenever you like’’

(Group 10)

A similar proportion of respondents also reported trying to

reduce water usage in showers suggesting that attitudes to

water use more generally have been altered. Showering is the

type of large-scale water use that people can modify without

the need for new equipment or modifications to the home.

There was little variation across the dwelling types in the

proportions reporting reduced shower times. Focus group

participants unanimously nominated households with chil-

dren as the biggest users of water attributing this to the

perceived length of showers taken by teenagers. Shove (2002)

suggests that showering is more a function of cultural and

social factors than concern over cleanliness, implying that

encouraging people to take fewer showers may not be a

successful strategy without additional effort to address these

behavioural factors. Participants’ responses tended to support

this view, especially among those who commented on the

difficulties they experience in trying to get teenagers to take

shorter and less frequent showers.

Even those who took baths were not immune to the need to

reduce consumption.

‘‘I pump out the bath onto the lawn using a thing you put on

the end of the hose that my dad bought me.’’ (Group 8)

The restrictions also appear to have resulted in a reduction

in the frequency of car washing for a sizeable minority, with

29% of all respondents with a vehicle saying they had reduced

car washing. Respondents in houses were more likely to report

this action (31%) compared with those in flats (18%), the latter

figure reflecting lower car ownership.

The lack of action to reuse ‘grey water’ is perhaps

surprising, but for most households this is both costly and

impractical.

9.2. Actions likely to be taken over the next year

There was some indication that there is greater potential or

willingness by consumers to change their water use practices.

Respondents were asked what measures they would be likely

to undertake in the next 12 months to reduce usage. While

there is a considerable difference between a speculative

answer to a telephone interviewer’s question and real

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5452

intentions or outcomes, the survey implied widespread

willingness to contemplate changed behaviour, as well as

indicating the relative priorities respondents’ placed on

various conservation practices. Oliver (1999) who, reporting

on a case study of water conservation, found that there was a

considerable gap between stated attitudes and manifested

actions. The findings of this study tend to provide support for

this contention although we note that the relationship

between attitudes and behaviour is more likely to be dynamic.

That is, the propensity of households to change behaviour

depends not only on their own capacities and attitudes, but to

the institutional context within which they live (in this case,

housing tenure and management) and the extent to which a

culture of change is encouraged.

The most common water conservation practice respon-

dents said they would adopt during the year was to turn off the

tap while brushing teeth (Fig. 6): 92% said they would do this

more regularly. This may be considered as a symbolic gesture,

but it shows that the conservation message has been taken on

board by almost everyone. This was followed by a range of

actions which also take place inside the home: ensuring the

washing machine is full before use (86%); the greater use of

water economy settings and using a plug more frequently in

sinks or basins (both 78%); using the half flush for the toilet

(61%); and again, taking shorter showers (59%).

Efforts to further reduce water use in the garden, for

cleaning paved areas or cars were proposed by small

proportions of households. Reducing the frequency of toilet

flushing and ensuring dishwashers were full before use were

less frequently quoted as targets for the next year. Half said

they would not reduce toilet flushing or contemplate recycling

shower or other household water for garden use. The former is

clearly a matter of preference and focus group participants

revealed strong opposition to such a practice.

‘‘I hate it when the kids don’t flush the loo!’’ (Group 9),

But the latter is more likely to reflect the difficulties

households have in actually recycling water on a practical and

convenient basis (especially for flat dwellers).

While the responses as to likely future action appear highly

optimistic given the actual behaviour recorded over the

previous 12 months, the survey suggests strong support for

further action. Changes in external water use appear to have

lower priority compared with actions already taken, reflecting

the fact that many households had reduced water use in this

area and there was limited capacity to extend this activity. The

scope for further substantial reduction in water use outside the

home is therefore limited. Despite NSW Government propo-

sals to legalise the use of grey water for garden watering, these

responses suggest that without a significant educational

campaign or subsidies to encourage the use of grey water, it

is unlikely that many will take up the opportunity. The most

likely water conservation behaviour in the immediate future is

by focusing on a range of activities inside the home, especially

in the way households use their kitchen, bathrooms and

washing appliances.

Those living in flats were less likely than those in houses to

report water saving action, either over the previous 12 months

or in the next 12 months. Flat dwellers had only partial

awareness of the costs or amount of water they use and

therefore may not perceive water conservation to be a

particular concern for them. But it is also likely to be much

more difficult for flat residents to adopt conservation practices

that require access to external areas or modifications to

equipment and facilities.

9.3. Would subsidising water saving devices affect watersaving practices?

We saw above that pricing policies to reduce consumption

might only have relatively limited impacts given the lack of

general understanding of the level of water use among

consumers. The alternative is to subsidise water saving

devices to encourage take up and thereby affect a general

lowering of water use. In fact, almost half the respondents

(48%) said they would be willing to fit water saving devices

even if they had to pay for them entirely. Nevertheless, the

willingness to fit these devices rose to three quarters (77%) if

the price was subsidised by a half, while potential take up

increased to just under nine in ten (86%) if devices fitted freely.

This suggests that support by government for such devices

could be critical in promoting general acceptance of water

saving technologies.

But there was a clearly economic dimension to this

question. Those buying their home were most likely to use

water saving devices if they had to pay for them, while those

renting public housing were least likely to. This response in

part reflects the economic position of the latter group and the

critical influence income, and hence subsidies, is likely to play

in the uptake of water saving technologies. But it may also

reflect an attitude among public housing tenants that their

landlord, the NSW Department of Housing, should take

responsibility for this matter.

10. Conclusion

These findings generally suggest that Sydneysiders are aware

of water conservation as an important issue and also have

good intentions in terms of making an effort to reduce water

use further. There is also evidence that for many house-

holders, water conservation has its practical limitations. This

confirms the conclusions of other researchers (e.g. Hand et al.,

2003; Shove, 2002) that the picture is not simple and there will

need to be much more thought put into policy development if

the promise of this general awareness and support for more

water conservation is to be made effective in terms of

sustained reductions in domestic water usage.

In the context of such criticism, several important

additional conclusions can be drawn from this research in

relation to urban water demand management policies. The

first is that the kind of homes people live in and whether they

own or rent not only influences overall water consumption

levels, but also how people think about water use. This is

important in terms of the general debates on the environ-

mental benefits to be gained from shifting residential demand

from low density to higher density housing. Households in

houses consume more than those in flats on average because

they tend to be larger, although it may be that the influences

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5 453

of household dynamics introduces a degree of ‘social’ control

in houses that may restrain consumption simply because

facilities are more likely to be shared. They are also more likely

to achieve economies of scale that cannot be achieved by

smaller households that tend to live in flats. This point was

noted in the IPART study of water consumption in Sydney in

2003 (IPART, 2004).

But earlier research by the authors indicated that on a per

capita basis, whether you live in a house or a flat had relatively

little impact on average individual water use (Troy et al., 2005).

The findings discussed here help to explain why this might be

the case. Home owners are likely to have direct control over

their homes and are in a position to undertake refitting their

homes or buying new appliances that can assist in lowering

overall potable water use. On the other hand, tenants, who

account for a quarter of Sydney’s households and two-third of

apartment dwellers, have little or no control over these

aspects of their home and also do not necessarily see the water

bill. Tenants are often young and transient, with little

knowledge of practical conservation methods around the

home, even if they support conservation issues. Most

importantly, at present, landlords have little interest in or

incentive to equip their investments to reduce water con-

sumption.

Flat dwellers are also much less likely than house dwellers

to know how much water they use as their water consumption

is usually paid as part of the service charge payment in the

case of flat owners and implicitly as a non-itemised

component of their rent for renters. There were noticeably

lower compliance rates among high-rise flat dwellers on the

use of water saving devices. The combination of strata title

management and private rental is even more important in the

flat market. As 35% of the housing stock in Sydney is medium

or higher density, most of it under strata management

arrangements, and with around six in ten private flats in

the city owned by investors (Bunker et al., 2005), this is not an

insubstantial barrier to the uptake of greater water conserva-

tion practices across the city as a whole. It may be of little use

to promote water saving measures generally among tenants,

especially those in flats – they do not have any say in the

standard of equipment and fittings they have in their homes –

without also targeting bodies corporate, landlords and strata

managers.

The complexity of the management and ownership of the

flat sector means that a more specific educational and

information program needs to be targeted at flat owners

and managers rather then leaving it to consumers. This is a

serious issue. With 70% of the housing in the next 30 years in

Sydney (and comparable proportions in Melbourne and SE,

Queensland) expected to be higher density, it may no longer

be a simple matter to encourage water saving among

consumers. By 2025 it is possible that 45% of Sydney resident

will live in strata-managed property (Randolph, 2006).

Without strategies to promote water saving among this

population, the battle for water demand management will

effectively be lost. Now that the second round of BASIX, which

introduced more stringent conservation requirements for

residential development, explicitly excludes flats, other

measures will need to be implemented to encourage water

conservation in this important and expanding sector. Flats

therefore pose a significant problem for water demand

managers in Sydney. The complexity of differences in

attitudes and behaviour between those who live in flats

compared with those living in houses confirms the point

made by Gilg and Barr (2006) that the efficacy of attempts to

change water consumption behaviour will be conditioned by

the way individuals relate to their household, the commu-

nities in which they live, the social norms and conventions of

their society and whether or not it facilitates or encourages

changes in behaviour. It will also be conditioned by the

limitations of the ecosystems in which they live.

Secondly, this research strongly suggests that simply

increasing water prices is unlikely to be an effective method

of managing domestic water demand in the short to medium

term. As few consumers understand what water costs

(although they acknowledge that it is very cheap) or how

much they use, simple economistic solutions to managing

water demand are unlikely to be effective. Most think they use

below the average amount of water (a statistical improbability)

and few think they should pay more to conserve water. The

minority who would consider paying more do not want to pay

much more. In other words, most think the water consump-

tion problem is caused by someone else and they should not

have to pay for a solution. That is not to say that people who

use substantial amounts of water should not be charged more,

a proposition most support—so long as it is not them.

The third general conclusion concerns the need to retro-fit

the existing housing stock with water efficient technologies

and appliances. In NSW, while BASIX is now modestly

chipping away at water demand generated by new housing

stock, it is clear that it will be many years before the benefits of

BASIX filters down to even a bare majority of the population in

NSW. Unless BASIX or its equivalent is applied progressively to

existing housing, the vast majority of households will continue

to live in homes with poor water conservation outcomes. A

significant reduction in domestic water consumption through

increased efficiency can only be achieved by retro-fitting the

existing housing stock, including where practical, blocks of

apartments, with rainwater tanks, grey water treatment

technology, more efficient tap and other water fittings. This

would entail significant public subsidies of some form, either

in grants or tax allowances. However, there is clearly a

substantial potential demand to be opened up should such

support become available. Water conservation policies, more-

over, also need to be tailored for different housing markets and

population segments. A simple one-policy-fits-all approach is

unlikely to achieve meaningful results. Gilg and Barr (2006:412)

make this point eloquently when they conclude that ‘‘policy

makers who wish to encourage water savings and other

conservation activities are likely to achieve greater success if

policies take account of behavioural complexity behavioural

groupings and lifestyle types’’.

More than anything else, a substantial and sustained

education campaign needs to be instituted that will show how

we can all address this issue in a practical and achievable

manner. Government and the water supply industry need to

take a clear lead on this as matter of urgency. Leaving public

consciousness on this issue to ephemeral media interest and

hoping we all get the message and act on it will not be good

enough.

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5454

Acknowledgments

We wish to acknowledge the assistance of our colleagues who

provided criticism of earlier drafts. We are also indebted to the

NSW Environmental Trust for the funding to undertake this

research (Environmental Trust Grant 2003 RD0005). We are

particularly grateful for the comments and suggestions made

by two anonymous referees.

r e f e r e n c e s

Aitken, C., Duncan, H., McMahon, T., 1991. A cross-sectionalregression analysis of residential water demand inMelbourne, Australia. Appl. Geogr. 11, 157–165.

Allon, F., Sofoulis, Z., 2006. Everyday water: cultures intransition. Aust. Geogr. 37 (1), 45–55.

Askew, L.E., Mcguirk, P.M., 2004. Watering the suburbs:distinction, conformity and the suburban garden. Aust.Geogr. 45 (1), 17–37.

Bamberg, S., 2003. How does environmental concern influencespecific environmentally related behaviors? A new answerto an old question. J. Env. Psychol. 23, 21–32.

Barr, S., 2003. Strategies for sustainability: citizens andresponsible behaviour. Area 35 (3), 227–240.

Bell, F.C., 1972. The acquisition, consumption and elimination ofwater in the Sydney urban system, the city as a life system?In: Nix, H.A. (Ed.), Proc. Ecol. Soc. Australia, vol. 7, Canberra.

Brett, J., 2007. Robert Menzies’ Forgotten People, second ed.Melbourne University Publishing.

Bunker, R., Holloway, D., Randolph, B., 2005. Building theconnection between housing needs and metropolitanplanning in Australia. Urban Policy Res. 20 (5), 771–794.

Commonwealth of Australia, 2005. Sustainable Cities, Report ofthe House of Representatives Standing Committee onEnvironment and Heritage, Canberra.

Dandy, G.C., 1987. A Study of the Factors Which AffectResidential Water Consumption in Adelaide. Report R 87Department of Civil Engineering, The University ofAdelaide.

de Oliver, M., 1999. Attitudes and inaction: a case study of themanifest demographics of urban water conservation.Environ. Behav. 31, 372–394.

Duruz, J., 1994. Suburban gardens: cultural notes. In: Ferber, S.,Healy, C., McAuliffe, C. (Eds.), Beasts of Suburbia:Reinterpreting the Cultures in Australian Suburbs.Melbourne University Press.

Eagly, A.H., Chaiken, S., 1998. Attitude structure and function.The Handbook of Social Psychology, vol. 1. McGraw-Hill, pp.269–322.

Eardley, T., Parolin, B., Norris, K., 2005. The social and spatial;correlates of water use in the Sydney region. Final Report ofthe Research Project for the Water Research Alliance,University of Western Sydney.

Espey, M., Espey, J., Shaw, W., 1997. Price elasticity of residentialdemand for water: a meta-analysis. Water Resour. Res. 33(6), 1369–1374.

Freestone, R., 2000. Planning, housing, gardening: home as agarden suburb. In: Troy, P. (Ed.), European Housing inAustralia. Cambridge University Press.

Gaynor, A., 2006. The Harvest of the suburbs: an environmentalhistory of growing food in Australian cities. University ofWestern Australia Press, Perth.

Gilg, A., Barr, S., 2006. Behavioural attitudes toward watersaving? Evidence from a study of environmental actions.Ecol. Econ. 57, 400–414.

Hamilton, L.C., 1985. Self-reported and actual savingsin a water conservation campaign. Environ. Behav. 17,315–326.

Hand, M., Southerton, D., Shove, E., 2003. Explaining dailyshowering: a discussion of policy and practice. WorkingPaper series No. 4. Economic and Social Science ResearchCouncil, Sustainable Technologies Programme.

Head, L., Trigger, D., Mulcock, J., 2005. Culture as concept andinfluence in environmental research and management.Conserv. Soc. 3 (2), 251–264.

Head, L., Muir, P., 2006. Edges of connection: reconceptualisingthe human role in biogeography. Aust. Geogr. 37 (1), 87–101.

Hitchings, R., 2003. People, plants and performance: on actornetwork theory and the material pleasures of the privategarden. Soc. Cult. Geogr. 4 (1), 99–113.

Holmes, K., 1999. Gardens. J. Aust. Stud. 152–161.Hurliman, A., 2006. Water, water, everywhere-which drop

should be drunk? Urban Policy Res. 24 (3), 303–305.IPART, 2004. Residential water use in Sydney, The Blue

Mountains and Illawarra, Research Paper No. 26,Independent Pricing and Regulatory Tribunal of NSW,Sydney.

Johnson, L., 1994. Spinning the suburban dream. In: Johnson, L.(Ed.), Suburban dreaming: an interdisciplinary approach toAustralian cities. Deakin University, pp. 1–7.

Morgan, B., 2004. Water; frontiers markets and cosmopolitanactivism. Soundings J. Polit. Cult. (28), 10–24.

Mullins, P., 1981a. Theoretical perspectives on Australianurbanisation. I. Material components I the reproductionof Australian labour power. Aust. NZ J. Sociol. 17 (1),65–76.

Mullins, P., 1981b. Theoretical perspectives on Australianurbanisation. II. Social components in the reproduction ofAustralian labour power. Aust. NZ J. Sociol. 17 (3), 35–43.

Mullins, P., 1996. In: Troy, P. (Ed.), Households, Consumerismand Metropolitan Development in Australian Cities: Issues,Strategies and Policies for the 1990s, Melbourne, Cambridge,pp. 87–109.

NSW Department of Planning, 2007. http://sustainability.nsw.gov.au/information/index.jsp?load_share_redirect=www.basix.nsw.gov.au,accessed April 2, 2007.

Randolph, B., 2006. Delivering the compact city in Australia:current trends and future implications. Urban Policy Res. 24(4), 473–490.

Shove, E., 2002. Converging Conventions of Comfort,Cleanliness and Convenience, Department of Sociology,Lancaster University, Lancaster, UK at http://www.comp.lancs.ac.uk/sociology/papers/Shove-Converging-Conventions.pdf.

Shove, E., 2003. Comfort, Cleanliness and Convenience: TheSocial Organization of Normality, Berg, Oxford/New York.

Stern, P.C., Dietz, T., Kalof, L., Guagnano, G.A., 1995. Values,beliefs and pro environmental action: attitude formationtoward emergent attitude objects. J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 25,1611–1636.

Stern, P.C., 2000. Towards a coherent theory of environmentallysignificant. Behav. J. Soc. Issues 56 (3), 407–424.

Sofoulis, Z., 2005. Big water, everyday water: a socio-technicalperspective. J. Media Cult. Stud. 9 (a), 407–424.

Sydney Morning Herald, 2006a. Premier taps into grey area,February 27.

Sydney Morning Herald, 2006b. Dry autumn plunges state backinto drought, May 23.

Sydney Water, 2007. http://www.sydneywater.com.au/SavingWater/WaterRestrictions/Mandatory waterrestrictions: water consumption since the introduction ofwater restrictions, http://www.sydneywater.com.au/Publications/FactSheets/

e n v i r o n m e n t a l s c i e n c e & p o l i c y 1 1 ( 2 0 0 8 ) 4 4 1 – 4 5 5 455

WeeklyWaterUsageAndTargets.pdf#Page=1, downloadedApril 14, 2007.

Trentmann, F., Taylor, V., 2006. From users to consumers: waterpolitics in nineteenth century London. In: Trentmann, F.(Ed.), The Making of the Consumer: Knowledge, Power andIdentity in the Modern World, Berg, Oxford/New York.

Troy, P., 1991. The Benefits of Owner Occupation UrbanResearch Paper 29, Australian National University, ISBN 07315 3505 7.

Troy, P., Holloway, D., 2004. The Use of Residential waterconsumption as an urban planning tool: a pilot study inAdelaide. J. Environ. Plan. Manage. 47 (1), 97–114.

Troy, P., Holloway, D., Pullen, S., Bunker, R., 2003. Embodied andoperational energy consumption in the city. Urban PolicyRes. 21 (1), 9–44.

Troy, P., Holloway, D., Randolph, B., 2005. Water use and thebuilt environment: patterns of water consumption inSydney, City Futures Research Report No. 1, City FuturesResearch Centre, Faulty of Built Environment, UNSW andCentre for Resource and Environmental Studies, ANU.

Troy, P., Randolph, B., 2006. Water consumption and the builtenvironment: a social and behavioural analysis, CityFutures Research Report No 5, City Futures Research Centre,Faculty of the Built Environment, UNSW and Centre forResource and Environmental Studies, ANU.

Turner, A., White, S., Beatty, K., Gregory, A., 2005. Results of thelargest residential demand management program inAustralia. In: Presented at International Conference on theEfficient Use and Management of Urban Water, Santiago,Chile.

Ungar, S., 1994. Apples and oranges: probing the attitude-behaviour relationship for the environment. Can. Rev.Sociol. Anthropol. 31 (3), 288–304.

White, S., Milne, G., Reidy, C., 2003. End use analysis: issues andlessons. In: Presented at the International WaterAssociation, Efficient Use and Management of Water forUrban Supply Conference, Tenerife, Spain.

Bill Randolph is Professor and Director of the City FuturesResearch Centre, Faculty of the Built Environment at the Univer-sity of New South Wales, leading a research team specializing inhousing policy, housing markets, sustainable urban developmentand metropolitan planning policy issues. He has 30 years experi-ence as a researcher on housing and urban policy issues in theacademic, government, non-government and private sectors. Inaddition to research on water and energy consumption in cities, heis involved in research on urban renewal, high-density living andhousing affordability.

Patrick Troy is Emeritus Professor and Visiting Fellow, FennerSchool of Environment and Society at the Australian NationalUniversity, Visiting Professor at the City Futures Research Centre,University of New South Wales and Adjunct Professor, School ofEnvironmental Planning, Griffith University. He has over 40 yearsexperience of urban environmental policy and research, workingas an engineer in the private sector, a planner in NSW StatePlanning Authority, senior administrator in the Australian Com-monwealth Government, and as an academic. In 1989, he wasmade an officer in the Order of Australia for contributions toeducation and urban and regional development.